DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 03/03/2026, claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“multiple Product Carriers moved sequentially through all of the various sections for retaining the product during the heat treatment pushed by mechanical pushers” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “pushers” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “mechanical pushers” , Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0028 and 0043 recite: “multiple Product Carriers moving sequentially through the various sections for retaining product during treatment pushed by a propelling means” and “Preferably, the propelling means is a piston or linear drive, and further preferably a piston”. Therefore, the mechanical pushers is/are a piston or linear drive, and further preferably a piston.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “the heat treatment” lacks antecedent basis but it does not render the claim indefinite. The term “the heat treatment” should be “a heat treatment”.
Claim 1, lines 3-10, should be amended as:
“the apparatus comprising:
a Loading Section,
a First Treatment Section, wherein the First Treatment Section having a wall defining a generally horizontally deployed pressure vessel within which the product is heat- treated,
a Transfer Section,
a Second Treatment Section, wherein the Second Treatment Section having a wall defining a generally horizontally deployed pressure vessel within which the product is cooled, and
an Unloading Section adjacent to said Loading Section, wherein either one of the First Treatment Section and the Second Treatment Section pressure vessels having no doors or gate valves;”
claim 1, lines 28-29, “the product surface” lacks antecedent basis but it does not render the claim indefinite. The term “the product surface” should be “a surface of the product”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matters “each Product Carrier of the multiple Product Carriers being sized to restrict the flow of the heat treatment liquid between said multiple Product Carriers and the said wall of each of the First Treatment Section and Second Treatment Section and thereby create a fractional drop in pressure of the heat treatment liquid over each one of the said multiple Product Carriers,
the number of the multiple Product Carriers required in each of the First Treatment Section and Second Treatment Section being equal to a required total pressure drop across each Treatment Section divided by the fractional drop in pressure over each product carrier of the multiple Product Carriers rounded up to the next whole number” recited in lines 14-22; and
which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The above subject matters are not supported by the original specification, especially in [0029], [0042], [0050], [0067], [0082], [0084], [0090], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0097], [0103] as asserted by the Applicant. Thus, the above subject matters are new matters.
Claims 2-4 and 6-13 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “each Product Carrier of the multiple Product Carriers being sized to restrict the flow of the heat treatment liquid between said multiple Product Carriers and the said wall of each of the First Treatment Section and Second Treatment Section and thereby create a fractional drop in pressure of the heat treatment liquid over each one of the said multiple Product Carriers” in lines 14-17. It is unclear how each Product Carrier of the multiple Product Carriers is sized to restrict the flow of the heat treatment liquid between said multiple Product Carriers because this limitation is not supported in the current application. The specification does not mention the size of the Product Carrier as well as the ability of restricting the flow of the heat treatment liquid as recited in claim 1. Thus, for examination purposes, each Product Carrier of the multiple Product Carriers can have any size to obtain the ability of “restrict[[ing[[ the flow of the heat treatment liquid between said multiple Product Carriers and the said wall of each of the First Treatment Section and Second Treatment Section and thereby create a fractional drop in pressure of the heat treatment liquid over each one of the said multiple Product Carriers”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the number of the multiple Product Carriers required in each of the First Treatment Section and Second Treatment Section being equal to a required total pressure drop across each Treatment Section divided by the fractional drop in pressure over each product carrier of the multiple Product Carriers rounded up to the next whole number” in lines 18-22. It is unclear how to obtain this limitation/calculation due to the lack of support in the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said pistons or linear drives" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if "said pistons or linear drives" corresponds to “mechanical pushers” previously recited in line 12 of the same claim. For examination purposes, the limitation "said pistons or linear drives" (line 25) is construed as the “mechanical pushers”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation“ a piston or linear drive” in last line. It is unclear the relationship between the limitation“ a piston or linear drive” (claim 4) and “said pistons or linear drives” (claim 1, line 25). For examination purposes, the “ a piston or linear drive” (claim 4) is construed as one of “said pistons or linear drives” (Claim 1).
Claim 6 recites the same limitation “a piston or linear drive” in last line so claim 6 is rejected by the same reasons as discussed above in claim 4.
Claims 2-3 and 7-13 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Notes: Regarding claims 1-4 and 5-13, in lieu of the numerous indefinite issues cited above, the claims need clarification before a suitable art rejection may be applied. See MPEP 2173.06.II "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20110180232A1 discloses An apparatus for the heat treatment of a product, in particular a product contained within a hermetically sealed pouch or other plastic container, the apparatus having, a heating unit to contain a product as product is brought towards a treatment temperature and pressure, a sterilization unit to contain product at a pre determined treatment temperature and pressure to sterilize product, and a cooling unit to bring a product from the treatment temperature and pressure towards ambient; each unit being selectively sealable from another unit, the apparatus further having: a plurality of conduits carrying heat-exchange fluids allowing heat to be transferred between units; and having a heater, preferably producing steam, to supply heat to the apparatus; a heat-exchange unit enabling heat energy to be transferred from one conduit to another; and a hot well to retain a reservoir of heat exchange fluid at the highest temperature required by the apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761